Hacker News Reader

Wow, that's actually a pretty relevant thing to point out

> A notable part of the pushback directed at this Twitter employee is that his team focuses on bots & platform manipulation (not the same as fact-checking). But because he's been publicly critical of the president on social media, Trump surrogates are claiming it was his decision.

https://twitter.com/kateconger/status/1265675205680099328

Plus the response from Jack Dorsey yesterday:

> Fact check: there is someone ultimately accountable for our actions as a company, and that’s me. Please leave our employees out of this. We’ll continue to point out incorrect or disputed information about elections globally. And we will admit to and own any mistakes we make.

https://twitter.com/jack/status/1265837138114830336

It's a valid point. Shouldn't the head of integrity not have a history of negative bias? That's impossible in practice, but jeez Louise this guy said some pretty offensive things. I think that in of itself should make him ineligible. There cannot be a double standard here.

He seems to be a well balanced individual.